The Anti-Time Theory
- Thread starter Guttural Engagement
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends which multiverse theory you read. The Polakov equation give 26 dimentions in the flat space (bosonic) string theories as opposed to ten or eleven in superstring and M-theory.Xeros said:
@OP 'A body with large mass, such as a galaxy, bends spacetime around itself for an object directly behind it to be viewed indirectly' thus meaning that time is part of the fabric of reality
Well in that sense you could argue that distance, radiation or magnetic flux density don't exist because they all have measure. You could put forward that point that time does not exist using what you're saying but I don't think it holds true. Regardless how we use to measure time it does exist as the fact that we need to measure it proves that it does exist why would we need to measure a nonexistant factor. Although nice point.Guttural Engagement said:
Okay, the direction of this discussion is straying from anything meaningful and is simply becoming one conclusion sans premises after another or just anecdotal evidence with no context. Most of the questions (about measurement or the physics of time) have already been addressed in the discourse and newer, more valuable questions are being currently raised by professionals in the field.
I implore that any further potential responses come from individuals who have looked at the following (at the very least):
http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/
As this is a very basic starting point for anyone who is truly interested in adding anything useful to the inquiry. Gone are the questions about the 'existence' of time (since we experience very real attributes which we would consider 'temporal' in nature, such as decay or entropy). Please realize that what you are engaging in - since the initial question was an existential one, is no longer a physical issue but a philosophical one. Positing physical theories only begs the question, unless you do so from a metaphysical point of view.
This isn't just some passing fancy, but a real ontological issue - one that people have spent entire lifetimes researching, so no conclusion you come to in such a modest inquiry will be definitive, but it is through asking better questions that we may come to some fruitful assumptions (such as the ongoing debate - as I mentioned earlier - as to whether time is tensed or tenseless).
I don't mean to be pushy, but for some (myself included) this is a real ontological problem, the truth of which will bring us to some truth about the status of language as well as the priority of physics, and not just some stoney debate.
Look into the article or follow some links therein before contributing further.
I implore that any further potential responses come from individuals who have looked at the following (at the very least):
http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/
As this is a very basic starting point for anyone who is truly interested in adding anything useful to the inquiry. Gone are the questions about the 'existence' of time (since we experience very real attributes which we would consider 'temporal' in nature, such as decay or entropy). Please realize that what you are engaging in - since the initial question was an existential one, is no longer a physical issue but a philosophical one. Positing physical theories only begs the question, unless you do so from a metaphysical point of view.
This isn't just some passing fancy, but a real ontological issue - one that people have spent entire lifetimes researching, so no conclusion you come to in such a modest inquiry will be definitive, but it is through asking better questions that we may come to some fruitful assumptions (such as the ongoing debate - as I mentioned earlier - as to whether time is tensed or tenseless).
I don't mean to be pushy, but for some (myself included) this is a real ontological problem, the truth of which will bring us to some truth about the status of language as well as the priority of physics, and not just some stoney debate.
Look into the article or follow some links therein before contributing further.
Yeah, I ponder this when I get bored... Massive mindfuck if you try to figure it out for a while.
I believe David Eddings points this out in his book Polgara The Sorceress. There's this uber ancient tree that's been around forever. And it kinda sort of talks to Polgara when she's a child. Hard to explain, but yeah.
I believe David Eddings points this out in his book Polgara The Sorceress. There's this uber ancient tree that's been around forever. And it kinda sort of talks to Polgara when she's a child. Hard to explain, but yeah.
Let me start by admitting that I forgot about the lunar cycle (or whatever it's called), but the point I was trying to make was that months are an irregular unit of measure, since you can't evenly divide 365 1/4 days evenly between 12 months. So it's still arbitrary, just not as much as I said it was. A better example might be why an hour is 1/24 of a day, when 1/20 might be more relevant to the way our numbers work.SamFisher202 said:
Anyway, when I said days and years are just for Earth, I meant that we measure those based on the Earth's position relative to the sun. If you were living on a terraformed Mars in the future, the time and date on Earth would clash with your instinctive understanding of day and night.
Time is the processing of events according to cause and effect. This creates a linear progression. We see this progression and label it as time. Though on a quantum level, one could argue time is irrelevant, but it is obvious to the observing sentience that cause and effect occur in the macroverse. Instead of arguing whether time is there or not, since we observe it and therefore it must be there, we should wonder why it bothers to exist at all considering its seemingly lack of existance on the quantum level (though it very well could be there, who says we know what the fuck we're talking about?).
Seriously, why disprove something obvious? That seems like a better question to ponder. Why the hell do we feel the need to discuss the existance or lack of something we experience on a daily basis? Is our own existance just too unreliable though it is all you will ever have?
Seriously, why disprove something obvious? That seems like a better question to ponder. Why the hell do we feel the need to discuss the existance or lack of something we experience on a daily basis? Is our own existance just too unreliable though it is all you will ever have?
Technicalities are annoying. Not to mention, they defy logic.
You can detect the passing of time, you can observe the effects of passing time, and standard time is very widely accepted by everyone - EVERYONE (except maybe Time Cube theorist(s)).
You're clearly very bored. Go do laundry, or wash dishes, or take a walk. Or play a game.
You can detect the passing of time, you can observe the effects of passing time, and standard time is very widely accepted by everyone - EVERYONE (except maybe Time Cube theorist(s)).
You're clearly very bored. Go do laundry, or wash dishes, or take a walk. Or play a game.
we only use 10% of our thinking power.... 10%!!!!!! hard to imagine what would happen at 50%....mobuto said:
Yes, the block universe theory in physics. I know about this. I also know that this theory doesn't fit well with plain old human interpretation that claims that the present does in fact exist.
Oh and that's not anti-time, this is:
Oh and that's not anti-time, this is:
All you're really saying is that there is no true, set measurment system for time. That's like saying that distance doesn't exist because you can measure it in both miles and kilometers.
Your logic is flawed. Yes time is a measurement, or to me more precise, we have a means of measuring time. There are different measurement terminology depending on what it is that's being measured. If you were measuring the length of something you would indeed say it is X meters long. BUT if you were measuring the depth of something, like a swimming pool, you wouldn't say it's X meters long, you would say it's X meters deep. It's the same for time, when measuring time, we describe an object by how old it is by saying it's X years old.Guttural Engagement said:
Also I believe Einstein's general theory of Relativity basically disproves your "Time does not exist" theory.
If the tree falls down in a completely empty place where there is nothing to 'hear' it, mechanical, biological or chemical, does it make a sound?Quiet Stranger said:
Following his logic on why time doesn't exist, distance doesn't exist either. Therefore all places are in the same place and it is a singularity, like a black hole, or the universe immediately before the big bang. We know this to be untrue as we are having this conversation.Sober Thal said: